ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056046

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Mary Charlotte Known As Maureen McHugh	Deonach Tallaght Probation Project

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	{text}	{text}

Representatives

John Connellan BC law

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00068208-001	18/12/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00068208-002	18/12/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00068326-001	23/12/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

The hearing of these complaints were held in conjunction with those referred under ADJ 56484.

Although I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the time and date of the hearing, she did not attend at the appointed time of 9 30 am to give evidence in relation to her complaints. She telephoned the WRC’s reception desk at 9 30 am to explain that she was delayed by 10 minutes due to traffic. I therefore waited until 9 50 am and as she was still not in attendance at that time, I proceeded with the hearing. Two witnesses from the Respondent were in attendance along with their representative. As the Complainant was not present to give evidence, the hearing concluded.

The Complainant subsequently arrived at the WRC at 10am. I explained to her that, as she had not arrived at the appointed time of 9 30am and within a reasonable period afterwards, I had proceeded to hear the matter and it had concluded.

Background:

The Complainant stated in her complaint form that she works under a Service Level Agreement as a Tutor with the Respondent. She further stated that she works 19 hours per week and is paid €2,400 per month. She referred several complaints to the WRC in relation to alleged breaches of her employment rights in the workplace.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence in relation to her complaints.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

As the Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence in relation to her complaints, the Respondent did not present any evidence.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00068208-001:

As the Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00068208-002:

I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for the reasons set out above.

CA-00068326-001:

As the Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

CA-00068208-001:

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00068208-002:

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against for the reasons set out above.

CA-00068326-001:

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.

Dated: 8th of May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Key Words: